Tragic news for democrats and the left.Great news for the USA>

[PatPatriot]

UH OH ... TAX REVENUES ARE UP.

A few weeks ago you were hearing a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Democrats and some Republicans in Washington about the size of the projected budget deficit. Democrats almost exclusively blamed this deficit on the Bush tax cuts and stood in line to say that these tax cuts should be turned around.

Funny ... you haven't heard a lot about this budget deficit lately, have you? Do you know why? It's because the projected budget deficit is actually shrinking, not growing. When the budget deficit grows that's bad news for the President and, therefore, good enough news to put on the TV newscasts and the front pages of the major newspapers. But, when that projected deficit shrinks it's actually good news for the President, and good news is news that's not fit to print or broadcast for many "journalists" out there.

Now ... just why have the projected deficits been shrinking? No, it's not because government is scaling back its spending. It's because the Imperial Federal Government is experiencing a sharp increase in tax revenues. That's right, an increase! It's no small increase in federal tax revenues either. Try this figure ---- $85 Billion. That's with a "B." The current estimate of tax revenues to the federal government is $85,000,000,000 higher right now than it was one month ago. The left and the Democrats have been warning that the Bush tax cuts would lead to lower tax revenues, the fiscal conservatives have been saying just the opposite. Well ... guess who wins this one. Hint: It's not the left.

Once again .. just as with both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, we're seeing an increase in government revenues. Don't you Democrats just hate it?

 

[kayaman+]

I don't think you can really tell much until you see the long term.

Just take Ronnie Ray-gun, in his 8 years he took us from greatest creditor to greastest debtor nation. It took all the way to the end of Clinton before we saw a surplus. Then of course the GSL never recovered from Ronnie.

IMO the whole tax cut/revenue/deficit issue is trivial when you consider bush2 is wasting a billion a week on his party in Iraq.

BTW what's the source on that article?, it reads more like righty propaganda than actual news.

 

[BigGamesOnly]

I think people give the President more credit than he deserves for the economy. What did Clinton do to cause the economy to do well during his tenure? The good economy had more to do with the tech boom than anything he did.

 

[PatPatriot]

BGO..absoulutley...Predident has to do with the economy as much as Ronald MacDonald has to do with your fries being burnt.

Kaya..The country had the biggest spurt of economic growth in the countrys history under Regan.

 

[kayaman+]

Biggames,

I agree.

Pat,
As I said, Ray-gun took us from greatest creditor to greatest debtor nation in only 8 years. While cutting social security to the point that his era is where the famous stories of retirees eating cat food because their benifits had been cut so much. He also raped the GSL program as well as cut spending on public school education, maybe you don't remeber his comical ketchup counts as a vegetable for public school lunches comment. Of course he did create jobs by expanding the military which just had to be cut back later.

Oh yeah and aside from all that he was a criminal, nice guy to admire.

 

[Prosportsgambler]

The President does not spend money - that is what the Congress does. The President only submits a budget proposal which must be approved by Congress. Under Ronald Reagan, the deficit/debt rose to levels unprecedented because of the democratic Congress which wrote in much more spending than was ever proposed by Reagan. His tax cuts were responsible for the greatest economic boom in history - again though, the Congress writes the laws and had to approve those tax cuts. For all of you that have no civics education:

President = law enforcer
Congress = law maker

It is just simple economics that tax cuts lead to more revenue to the treasury. Unfortunately the public's economics education is terribly inadequate so most people do not understand this very basic concept.

 

[D2bets]

Patriot, the key there is the revenue is higher and deficit lower than PROJECTED recently. That does not mean the revenue is higher and deficit lower in REAL terms as compared to last year and the year before, etc. The deficit still reached an all-time high this year, twice as high as last year's. Only Republicans could manage to trumpet this as an accomplishment. Talk about SPIN!

 

[PatPatriot]

D2, you are right, but it kind puts the naysayers and the gloom and doom demcrats back on their heels when it is obvious to anybody that more money put back in the TAXPAYERS hands actually produces economic stimulation...If sombody gets back thousands of dollars in tax breaks and buys a new car well it keeps people that make those cars working.

 

[jimbutorac]

Tax revenues are up...

over projected tax revenues. (which were projected incorrectly by this administration)

From USA Today, Oct. 21:

Even with a growing economy, the White House expects the deficit to exceed $500 billion in 2004, up from its earlier projection of $475 billion.
(which of course is an all-time high).
"Unless we're going to get economic growth that's unprecedented, we're not going to grow out of this. These are large, structural deficits that are going to require either limits on spending or increases on revenues", said budget expert Stanley Collender of Fleishman-Hilliard.

Patriot, if the Bush Administration wasn't Republican, you'd be critizing him for being a free-spending liberal. The fact is just like in Texas, Bush is inheriting a surplus and turning it into a deficit just like he did as governor of Texas. But he always succeeds in giving tax cuts to the rich which is why people like Ken Lay from Enron are staunch supporters while Bush irrepairably harms the government's budget and jeopardizes the economy.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
D2, you are right, but it kind puts the naysayers and the gloom and doom demcrats back on their heels when it is obvious to anybody that more money put back in the TAXPAYERS hands actually produces economic stimulation...If sombody gets back thousands of dollars in tax breaks and buys a new car well it keeps people that make those cars working.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it stimulates to an extent. It's a balancing act and as a general rule the less taxes needed the better. I find it kinda funny though that the Republicans keep screaming how we need the tax cuts to stimulate, etc. When Bush was campaigning that was not the rationale. And if you really believe in ax cuts to stimulate in a depressed economy then on the flipside you have to be for tax increases in a hot economy. Obviously you can't cut everytime you have a downturn and then never incease back up to some equilibrium -- eventually you'd be near zero.

The most concerning thing here is Bush continues to fail to put forth any sort of plan for bringing the deficit under control. He knows the issue is a loser for him so he just choose to ingore it. Or in the immortal words of Ronald Regan -- "Deficit? What deficit?"

 

[PatPatriot]

You cut SPENDING!!!!
Like department of education...Billions unaccounted for.
HUD...billions anacounted for!!! and you want to raise taxes????
Big dig in Boston 7 billion dollars price tag in 1985..now a 16 billion dollar boondoggle and still unfinished...raise taxes?????
Mexifornia 38 billion dollars in debt,all democrats all the time..their new and improved plan... raise taxes...bye,bye Grey Skies Davis.

 

[radiofreecostarica]

Predident has to do with the economy as much as Ronald MacDonald has to do with your fries being burnt.

So then why did you post this to begin with, Pat?

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
You cut SPENDING!!!!
Like department of education...Billions unaccounted for.
HUD...billions anacounted for!!! and you want to raise taxes????
Big dig in Boston 7 billion dollars price tag in 1985..now a 16 billion dollar boondoggle and still unfinished...raise taxes?????
Mexifornia 38 billion dollars in debt,all democrats all the time..their new and improved plan... raise taxes...bye,bye Grey Skies Davis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fed Govt spending and the number of govt employees has skyrocketed in Dubya's Admin. It's simply a myth that Republicans are for reducing the size of government, it's all talk. And if conservatives like you had any balls you call the Admin out for it. If spending increased like this under a Dem Pres and Congress you'd say same 'ol same 'ol. Both parties are (at least currently) for big government, they just have slightly different pet projects.

 

[PatPatriot]

D2...I have both parties spend like drunkin sailors...I agree with you on that and your right...I am not a republican, I am more of a libertarian, thats actually a registerd democrat believe it or not.
I didn't leave the democratic party the democratic party left me.